Optimized condition isn't met just because a game hits 60 fps. It's about what level of hardware is required for a given level of technical prowess/graphics and performance combined. If it takes a 760 to get 30 fps and 980 to hit 60 FPS in PacMan or original Mario Super Bros., according to you, the game is well optimized. It is no wonder people say Trine2, Alien Isolation or Crysis 3 are well optimized because they run well relative to their hardware demands relative to their graphics -- among the best optimized games on the PC compared to other games.
It's hard to argue with a poster who keeps defending the AC franchise and thinks Unity is the best looking / next gen game on the PC. Unity can't be next generation for starters when it doesn't look a generation beyond Crysis 3, Metro LL or Tomb Raider. How many times does this need to be repeated? In many ways even Uncharted 4 and Infomous Second Son look better than Unity. Again, a next generation game today would need to look better by 1 generation compared to anything out. It also implies that Unity must look as good as any PS4 game for the entire PS4 generation because Crysis 1, a true next generation game at that time, did look as good as any PS3 game for all of Ps3's life. Unity fails miserably in this regard by failing to look 1 gen above PC games and not matching ISS and U4, nevermind 2016-2019 PS4 games. You keep saying how those Unity screenshots weren't pre-rendered but are in-game engine. There are no such graphics in any section of the game in real time. It's like ND claiming the E3 trailer of U4 was in-game. So what? It's easy to make a scripted 2 minute scene using the game engine and it would have 0 to do with real world real time graphics of the same game.
What's interesting is nearly every professional review, nearly every PC and console gamer thinks Unity is unoptimized (ie, it does NOT look great given the hardware demands and scales poorly based on various professional analysis such as Digital Foundry and AT), here we have 1 guy who disagrees with almost everyone. This game doesn't have a divided opinion of optimization like Crysis 1 or Metro games do. Instead, almost everyone with experience of PC gaming thinks the game is an optimized mess. Also, there are several issues with LOD in draw distance, low polygon character models, primitive physics, very poor shadow and lighting model, poor character hair, low resolution textures, etc. These factors contribute to exacerbate how poorly optimized Unity is. None of this is surprising since the last 3 AC games have been unoptimized on the PC. It's a track record. For example why does Unity run so much worse than FC4, but looks worse in many areas? How broken is the game that reducing NPC count does nothing to raise FPS?
There are way too many screenshots on our and other forums which highlight that while in some areas the game looks good, in others it looks downright like a 2010-2011 game. Over the years I have noticed you cheer the AC franchise over and over and defend its horrible performance on the PC. Ok, it's your opinion but most gamers disagree based on what one can read on forums and reviews of AC U. I also remember you denying how ugly AC3 looked, especially in the snow levels, and I once again called out primitive lighting and shadow model and low polygon character models:
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassins-creed-iii-test-gpu.html
Let's not even forget that Ubisoft accused AMD of poor performance and bugs as if AMD causes horrible performance and bugs on NV hardware too:
http://www.kitguru.net/components/g...e-of-assassins-creed-unitys-poor-performance/
Later Ubisoft themselves admitted that the code is not optimized and they will be releasing "performance patches" for everyone, not just AMD users. Complete contradiction to their earlier damage defense, huh?
Anyways, looking forward to this magical 1.4 performance patch and many more to go so that hopefully by the time the game hits $5-10 it won't require 970 G1@ 1.4Ghz in SLI to hit 60 fps with blurfest FXAA.
Facebook
Twitter